Federal Circuit: Section 285 Does Not Permit Recovery of Fees Incurred in IPRs Nor Does it Extend to Counsel

June 25, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit recently ruled that a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding with related district court litigation cannot recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Federal Circuit further held that Section 285 does not extend liability for a fee award to counsel.

After being sued for patent infringement along with eight other defendants, Appellants filed an IPR petition challenging the lone patent-in-suit. The IPR was instituted, and as a result, the district court stayed the case as to Appellants, but continued with the case against the remaining eight defendants. Shortly thereafter the court issued its claim construction order, all parties stipulated to non-infringement and judgement was entered for each defendant. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision that all asserted claims were unpatentable followed.

After a series of appeals left the outcome of the district court case and IPR unchanged, Appellants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in the district court. Specifically, Appellants moved to recover the attorneys’ fees they incurred in the district court litigation and IPR, and sought to recover those fees from plaintiff and its counsel on theory of joint and several liability. The district court awarded the Appellants’ fees for litigating in the district court, but refused to award fees for the IPR or against plaintiff’s counsel.

On appeal, Appellants argued that because the IPR was “‘part and parcel’ of the case,” the optional nature of an IPR filing should not preclude recovery of fees under Section 285. The Federal Circuit disagreed. Because Appellants made a voluntary and strategic choice to pursue an IPR rather than litigate validity in the district court, they were not entitled to fees for the IPR. As the court explained, if fees were awarded for IPRs, then the district court would be placed in the odd situation of evaluating the exceptionality of conduct in which it had no involvement.

The Federal Circuit also refused to apply the fees award to counsel. According to the court, attorney liability is more appropriate in cases where statutes or rules expressly identify counsel as a liable party. Because the language of Section 285 is silent as to whether counsel may be found liable for attorneys’ fees, the court refused to extend it to counsel in this case. This outcome made particular sense here, where exceptionality was based on substantive litigation positions and not the manner in which the case was litigated.

Practice Tip: Defendants in litigation who choose to challenge validity before the PTAB should be aware that, if successful, they may not be able to recover attorney fees in the district court. Likewise, fees may never be recoverable in cases where a party is “judgment proof” because it is unlikely that a court will find counsel for that party liable for fees absent some form of litigation misconduct.

Dragon Intell. Prop. LLC, v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case Nos. 2022-1621 and 2022-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does
not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the
invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The
Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the
named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other
language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and
what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited
reference met the test.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by
specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in
weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the
discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that
litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily
in favor of the bar.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written
description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is
claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the
accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the
patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the
Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed
technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.
...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.